K. Praveen Kumar Vs State of Telangana

THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10171 OF 2025

ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed under Section 480 & 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS’) by the petitioner/A.1 seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No.713 of 2025 of Chandanagar Police Station, Cyberabad District. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Section 69 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶5

The case of the prosecution is that the complainant lodged a report before police stating that on 22.02.2022 she met the petitioner and he told her that he is working in Uber and also in Bhargav Medical as a Manager and he would be getting job for her. Petitioner took her phone number on the guise of job and since then, started talking to her. After few days he proposed the complainant to marry her and in March 2020, petitioner called the complainant as usual and they went out and under the promise of marriage, he abused her sexually. Later when she asked to marry, petitioner refused to marry her. In this regard she lodged a complaint wherein the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding, where the petitioner undertook

¶6

2

¶7

to marry the complainant, but he did not marry. As such, she filed a complaint requesting the police to take necessary action. Basing on the said complaint the police registered the case against the accused for the above offence.

¶8

Heard Sri Prudhvi Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State.

¶9

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is an innocent person and as per the complaint, itself there is a relationship between the petitioner and complainant from 2022 and thereafter a MOU was signed by both parties which itself shows that there is no such offence committed by the petitioner. Further petitioner is in jail from 19.07.2025 and material part of investigation is also completed. As such, requested the Court to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶10

On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail stating that the alleged offence is heinous in nature and investigation is still pending. As such, requested the Court to dismiss this petition.

¶11

Considering the submissions made by the respective counsel and the material placed on record, admittedly, the

¶12

3

¶13

alleged offence took place from the year 2022 and petitioner herein is in jail for the last one month. The record shows that 12 witnesses were already examined. Considering the period of incarceration of petitioner in jail, this Court deems it appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

¶14

i. The petitioner/accused shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only), with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of IX-Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally.

¶15

ii. The petitioner/accused shall appear before the concerned SHO at 11:00 a.m., on every Wednesday for a period of eight (8) weeks, for the purpose of investigation and thereafter, as and when required.

¶16